[jambutty]

Does it not make sense to have people who completly understand the words of law, to be in charge of producing legislation?

On the face of it you could well be right Cyfr except that in my view the law should be clear and unambiguous, not full of words that most people cannot make head or tail of. After all if the government passes a law and the ordinary person cannot understand it, how can they be expected to obey the law? Yet ignorance of a law is no defence.

As one eminent Scottish judge put it several years ago – “The law should say what it means and mean what it says.” Clever barristers can twist the meaning to something entirely different.

So not in charge of producing legislation but as the backroom boys that do the actual drafts for the approval of the House.

In fact you have presented me with a classic example of how something can be twisted to mean something else.

If you could have the most democratic system ever where everyone in the country voted on issues and produced the issues etc, would that make the country better for the people? no it wouldnt.

You are quite right such a way would be unworkable but I am not suggesting that.

Unless I have got it wrong democracy is government by the people through ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Where we have it wrong is the way that the results of an election are manipulated. Is it fair that a constituency of 50,000 people has the same power as one with twice that amount? Our system is based on the number of seats won not votes cast and thus can never be truly representative of the majority of the people who actually vote.

For example, if you could vote to have £1million in benifits then crap loads of people would vote for it, they arnt polititions, they don't care where it comes from.

People do not directly vote for a particular bill so your point is not relevant as is your final paragraph.

If your MP is a lawyer, then he/she is rotten & he/she is corrupt.

I wouldn’t go quite as far as to say that Tealeaf but I take your point onboard.